I have traveled few times on ANA's 787 between Narita/Tokyo and Seattle. While sitting in emergency exit row at window seat, I could feel that the floor in front of the seat was unusually hot. After seeing location of the fire in pictures of JAL's 787, I get the impression that the emergency exit row seat was just above the cargo bay where fire originated. I am glad that ANA 787 I was on didn't catch fire.<p>I am glad to finally see FAA making a decision to ground 787. I hope 787 don't fly until these issues are resolved.
OK, from the horse's mouth:<p><a href="http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=14233" rel="nofollow">http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId...</a><p>And here's a good document dealing with Lithium-Ion battery hazards:<p><a href="http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/pdf/research/rflithiumionbatterieshazard.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/pdf/research/rflithiumionba...</a><p>I have a lot of experience with Lithium Polymer batteries as I fly eletric-powered radio-controlled helicopters and planes that use them. There are always reports of LiPo (as they are commonly known) packs puffing-up and sometimes catching on fire and even exploding (more like the popping of a pop-corn bag except that you have flames shooting out of it). I have personally exploded a small 3S (three cells in series) pack just to see the mechanism and the magnitude of the effect. I have to say that it took a LOT of work to explode the pack. I over-charged it to a ridiculous degree.<p>Now, of course, there are also reports of packs catching on fire for no apparent reason at all. There are many explanations out there. The best I came across was from a PhD Chemist who explained it something like this (paraphrasing, of course): When these batteries are assembled there's moisture in the surrounding environment. And, while moisture is kept in check, some of it stays in the pack. They can't run a super-dry environment because it could be very dangerous. One of the electrodes is lithium-oxide infused in carbon. Lithium reacts with water, which gives you hydrogen. Carbon reacts with hydrogen to give you methane. As methane is generated the cell puff-up. If thermal runaway is triggered through other mechanisms and the methane ignites: kaboom!<p>I keep about thirty LiPo packs in strong locked and vented steel container (heavy toolbox) in the garage away from flammable materials and flame sources. When we go to the flying field the same container is used to transport to the field. While at the field the container is always locked and, if possible, removed from the car. I have never had an incident I did not cause.<p>As far as the Boeing issues. Hard to say from the outside. It could boil down to quality issues at their battery supplier. It is probably impossible to perform a full inspection on these kinds of batteries on delivery. How do you determine if there's too much moisture inside a sealed package?
They are shooting for a 330 minute ETOPS for the 787. That means a plane can be up to 6.5 hours from the closest airport on long haul flights. ETOPS has more to do with engine reliability than fire safety, but I can't help wonder if this will affect things.<p>Incidentally, I flew on two United 787s in December and I thought they were fantastic planes. The electrochromic windows were a real treat.
Will this affect non-US airlines that flight to the U.S.? A 787 from a Polish airline (LOT) is about to land in Chicago. Will it be allowed to fly back to Poland with passengers on board?<p><a href="http://fr24.com/LOT3" rel="nofollow">http://fr24.com/LOT3</a>
Just a random piece of pedantry; the article states that Poland's LOT is the only european airline operating the 787 right now.<p>I was at Heathrow maybe 90 days ago and British Airways had a brand new 787 (Painted in fancy "Dreamliner" dress and BA logo) parked at a gate as if it was in use. Might be that they were still demoing it/showing it off deliberately but I had the impression it was an active aircraft.
There's a nice interactive guide to the 787's reported problems on the Guardian's site today:<p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/interactive/2013/jan/11/boeing-787-dreamliner-faults-interactive" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/interactive/2013/jan/11/b...</a>
Does anyone know why the 787 seems to have gone so wrong? Wasn't it tremendously delayed and then it seems like I'm hearing about problem after problem?<p>Is this a sign our civilization is in technological decay and we're losing our ability to build advanced machinery?